|Publication number||US7873607 B1|
|Application number||US 11/178,252|
|Publication date||Jan 18, 2011|
|Filing date||Jul 7, 2005|
|Priority date||Jul 7, 2005|
|Publication number||11178252, 178252, US 7873607 B1, US 7873607B1, US-B1-7873607, US7873607 B1, US7873607B1|
|Inventors||Stanley G. Knutson, Nathan D. T. Boyd, Sudhir M. Rao, Deepak Jain|
|Original Assignee||Knutson Stanley G, Boyd Nathan D T, Rao Sudhir M, Deepak Jain|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (7), Referenced by (5), Classifications (7), Legal Events (4)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
Many organizations use database systems to organize information. It is not uncommon for an organization to use multiple database systems. For example, a large business may use one system for customer relation management, one system for billing, one system to gather information from a web portal, one system for enterprise resource planning, and one system for customer support. These and other systems are referred to generically as database systems. Because of the multiple systems, there are differences in the information in the different databases even if the information is tied to the same customer company, supplier company, person, product or material. In some cases, the information is not the same because the company has moved, changed name, merged, or been acquired. There may be multiple records in one database or multiple databases that all refer to the same company. In some cases, the multiple records arise because a database record was input with a spelling difference in company name or the company name was entered with a different punctuation or capitalization (i.e. Company Name, Inc. or Company Name Incorporated). It is useful if the database information is consolidated into one list eliminating differences in or multiple copies of information.
One problem that arises in consolidating database information is that it is difficult to achieve the flexibility required in the consolidator of database information. For example, the consolidator takes its input from a number of database systems. Each of these systems has different information and different information structures which may be standard configurations for a given database system product or may be a customized version of a database system. Also, the comparisons required between database systems are different. Because each database system has different information structures, different information processing is required for a given user of the information structures from the different database systems to yield useful consolidator output information. And, the consolidator output for a given user will ideally take a customized form so that the information can be most effectively used. It would be useful if the consolidator could be flexible in its input, processing, and output in consolidating the information from different database systems.
Various embodiments of the invention are disclosed in the following detailed description and the accompanying drawings.
The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process, an apparatus, a system, a composition of matter, a computer readable medium such as a computer readable storage medium. In this specification, these implementations, or any other form that the invention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within the scope of the invention.
A detailed description of one or more embodiments of the invention is provided below along with accompanying figures that illustrate the principles of the invention. The invention is described in connection with such embodiments, but the invention is not limited to any embodiment. The scope of the invention is limited only by the claims and the invention encompasses numerous alternatives, modifications and equivalents. Numerous specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a thorough understanding of the invention. These details are provided for the purpose of example and the invention may be practiced according to the claims without some or all of these specific details. For the purpose of clarity, technical material that is known in the technical fields related to the invention has not been described in detail so that the invention is not unnecessarily obscured.
Specifying a consolidator for consolidating data from a plurality of database systems is disclosed. The consolidator is a system for combining or merging data or information from different database systems. Specifying a consolidator comprises receiving a user action wherein the user action specifies an action that modifies a knowledge base. The knowledge base includes schema information and matching information relating to the plurality of database systems. Schema information is information regarding database structures and their sources, entities, and attributes. Matching information is information regarding which information should match with which information (i.e. the fields in a record that are to be compared for matching), how it should be matched (i.e. the comparison should be made), and how it should be shown if it does match. Specifying a consolidator further comprises deriving an event from the user action wherein the event triggers rules that further modify the knowledge base and generating from the knowledge base a registry that comprises the consolidator wherein the registry includes a master database and a consolidator application. In some embodiments, the registry is a customer hub. The consolidator application is run to enter information from the plurality of input databases into the master database. In some embodiments, the consolidator application is a web application.
In 304, rules are triggered by the user action which causes a modification of the knowledge base. An event is derived from the user action, which causes a modification of the knowledge base. The event triggers a consistency rule which generates an action that modifies the knowledge base. An event is derived from the action which causes a modification of the knowledge base. The event can again trigger a consistency rule. In some embodiments, a consistency rule is that when a master entity is added to the knowledge base, the master entity is required to have ordering, all ordering attributes, and a corresponding staged entity. In some embodiments, a consistency rule is that when a staged entity is deleted, native attribute and ordering information corresponding to the staged entity is also required to be deleted. In some embodiments, an example of a master entity is a company. In some embodiments, a master entity is an entity that is constructed out of two records that are found to match. Within the matched records the fields are merged to create the best entity. The entity has references back to the original records. The entity also has ordering, display, and other information accompanying it. In some embodiments, a consistency rule is that in the definition of top down searching, there must be a level for each master entity. Top down searching is a way of identifying match candidates at the top level by searching from the top level down in each of the candidate database entries to identify the matching between the database entries.
In 306, the registry is defined. The knowledge base specified by the user modifications and the rule required modifications is used to define the registry. The registry, or customer hub, includes specifications for master entities, sources, match configurations, reporting, and general items.
In 308, the registry is validated. Validation uses rules to see if the registry as a whole is consistent. In some embodiments, a validation rule is that there are no duplicate display names for master entities. In some embodiments, a validation rule is that a database table name length is less than sixteen characters long and only contains valid characters (i.e. no question marks, no spaces). In some embodiments, a validation rule is that a match level must have a match comparison. In some embodiments, there are levels in the data structure: company, site, and person. An example of a match level is which levels (company, site, or person) are involved in the matching. An example of a match comparison is how the levels are compared. In some embodiments, a match level and match comparison are that in one match comparison the company name and the last name of the CEO are compared to see if they match In some embodiments, a validation rule is that every native attribute must have a cleanse alternative. For example, for the native attribute address1 and address2, the cleanse alternative for address1 is street number and street address, and the cleanse alternative for address2 is city, state, and zip, where a cleanse alternative contains the same information as or separated information from the original, or native attribute.
In 310, code is generated for the consolidator. In some embodiments, computer code is generated includes computer code that interacts with the input databases, computer code that interacts with the user of the consolidator, computer code that processes the information from the input databases, and computer code that interacts with the master database.
Source 902 is comprised of source systems. Source systems are the database systems that input data or information into the master database. Match configuration 904 is comprised of passes and levels. Passes are the type and number of the search types for identifying candidate matching. Levels are the levels of the database structures involved in the search type for identifying candidate matching. Reporting 906 is comprised of reports and change notifications. Reports are the reports that the user receives regarding the consolidation of database information. Change notifications are the notifications that occur when a record has changed. For example, if a record is updated indicating that a company has moved, then a change notification is sent by email to the sales team indicating that the address of the company has changed. General 908 are general configuration parameters including database connection information (for example, name of database computer, protocol connection information, database name, etc.), user timeout information, web server information (for example, Uniform Resource Locator (URL)), etc.
Although the foregoing embodiments have been described in some detail for purposes of clarity of understanding, the invention is not limited to the details provided. There are many alternative ways of implementing the invention. The disclosed embodiments are illustrative and not restrictive.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US6748394 *||Apr 27, 2001||Jun 8, 2004||Hyperion Solutions Corporation||Graphical user interface for relational database|
|US20030046280 *||Nov 6, 2001||Mar 6, 2003||Siemens Medical Solutions Health Services Corporat Ion||System for processing and consolidating records|
|US20050086360 *||Aug 24, 2004||Apr 21, 2005||Ascential Software Corporation||Methods and systems for real time integration services|
|US20050222931 *||Feb 24, 2005||Oct 6, 2005||Ascential Software Corporation||Real time data integration services for financial information data integration|
|US20060179431 *||Mar 19, 2004||Aug 10, 2006||Unisys Corporation||Rules-based deployment of computing components|
|US20060271528 *||Aug 4, 2006||Nov 30, 2006||Exeros, Inc.||Method and system for facilitating data retrieval from a plurality of data sources|
|US20070118504 *||Jun 14, 2004||May 24, 2007||Pavitra Subramaniam||Method, apparatus, and system for searching based on search visibility rules|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8316063 *||Dec 24, 2008||Nov 20, 2012||Rsun Corporation||Data-driven database processor|
|US8798382 *||Aug 26, 2013||Aug 5, 2014||International Business Machines Corporation||System and method for image storage and analysis|
|US9058367 *||Aug 20, 2012||Jun 16, 2015||Sears Brands, L.L.C.||Methods and systems for staging and propagating data|
|US20110010402 *||Dec 24, 2008||Jan 13, 2011||Ken Takeuchi||Data-driven database processor|
|US20140052690 *||Aug 20, 2012||Feb 20, 2014||Sears Brands, Llc||Methods and systems for staging and propagating data|
|U.S. Classification||707/692, 707/999.101, 707/694|
|Cooperative Classification||G06F17/30306, Y10S707/99942|
|Sep 23, 2005||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: PURISMA INCORPORATED, CALIFORNIA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:KNUTSON, STANLEY G.;BOYD, NATHAN D. T.;RAO, SUDHIR M.;AND OTHERS;SIGNING DATES FROM 20050906 TO 20050907;REEL/FRAME:016575/0906
|Oct 6, 2011||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: DUN & BRADSTREET, INC., NEW JERSEY
Effective date: 20110930
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:PURISMA INC.;REEL/FRAME:027025/0544
|Jul 21, 2014||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4
|Jul 21, 2014||SULP||Surcharge for late payment|